Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!voder!procase!roger
From: roger@procase.UUCP (Roger H. Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: virtual static data?
Message-ID: <152@logo.procase.UUCP>
Date: 25 May 90 07:30:18 GMT
References: <1990May23.102905.8689@athena.mit.edu> <13757@csli.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: roger@procase.UUCP (Roger H. Scott)
Organization: proCASE Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 12

In article <13757@csli.Stanford.EDU> Neil Hunt <Neil%teleos.com@ai.sri.com> writes:
>raeburn@athena.mit.edu (Ken Raeburn) writes:
>>Is there a logical reason for disallowing virtual static data members?
>This is a feature I have also wanted.  One problem is that static members
>are supposed to be able accessible without an object by using the qualifier.
>But then there is no vtable from which to do the virtual lookup.

This is the same misguided argument made against virtual static member functions
a month or two ago on the net - and it is wrong for exactly the same reasons.
If I refer to any virtual feature of a class with a qualified reference (c::f)
I have de-virtualized it - the "correct" class is provided explicitly in the
qualifier, thus there is no need for a vptr.